1. Field of the Invention
This invention concerns a vibration cancellation device. There is a considerable potential for an active vibration cancellation device able to reduce overall vibration of mechanical structures. Such devices could be attached to or embedded in struts, pipes or masts that are subject to vibration forces in order to eliminate these by active cancellation techniques. In addition, machinery is conventionally mounted on some type of passive mounting arrangement to reduce the severity of transmitted vibration to a supporting structure therefor. The use of an active vibration cancellation device, mounted near the base of such passive mounts can be used substantially to improve overall performance by cancelling vibrations which would otherwise be transmitted into the supporting structure.
2. Background Information
Active vibration cancellation has been experimented with in the past particularly in the case of engines running at a steady speed where the vibration energy spectrum has a significant content in only a few harmonics of the engine rotation rate. This allows one to use narrow-band active cancellation techniques only, which techniques are the simplest to implement. The cancellation technique tried was to use oscillating masses to suppress the resultant narrow band mechanical vibrations. However, heretofore, to generate an anti-phase momentum in a required direction, the oscillating mass had to be mechanically supported. A linear oscillating mass of an active vibration canceller is described in, for example, the journal of the Chartered Mechanical Engineer, January 1983, pages 41 to 47 (particularly page 44 and FIG. 13) in a paper by G. B. B. Chaplin. Other active vibration cancelling devices are described and shown in UK Patent Specifications Nos. 1,601,096 and 2,222,279. Usually, some form of diaphragm or spider support was provided to limit motion of the mass to the correct axis. In practise, such linear supports, spiders or diaphragms proved to be unreliable, through wear and fatigue. There was also a more significant objection: they could not easily withstand shock loading. This, along with their demonstrated unreliability, resulted in the idea largely being dropped.